ACORN suspected of huge absentee voter ballot scam in MA

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#1
Did I say ACORN? I meant Republicans :trollol:

Galvin Calls Voter Fraud Allegations 'Pretty Extreme'

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he is taking over all election-related activities from the clerk's office in the Western Massachusetts town of East Longmeadow. The move follows allegations of widespread voter fraud.

Galvin will strip oversight from the town clerk and send an election monitor to oversee all voting in East Longmeadow on primary day, which is Sept. 6. “My concern is going forward to make sure the election is properly administered to protect the integrity of the election but also the rights of voters,” he said.

Galvin said an employee in the town clerk’s office allegedly changed the party affiliation of hundreds of registered voters from Democrat to Republican without their knowledge, and then cast absentee ballots on their behalf.

“There was effort here to steal voters' identities by enrolling them in different political parties and then applying for absentee ballots for them. This is like identity theft in a financial context. This is just as bad if not worse because people are trying to steal an election. The objective here was to cast fraudulent ballots. That’s pretty extreme,” he said.

Republican Jack Villamaino is locked in a tight primary race for state representative. According to the Boston Globe, a friend of Villamaino’s who works in the East Longmeadow town clerk’s office is suspected of having changed the registrations in the office computers after work hours.

Galvin said state officials were tipped off to the voter fraud when hundreds of residents in the town suddenly changed party registration.

"In Massachusetts every local clerk’s office can only make changes in party enrollment through our central voter registry. That is to say every clerk’s office is assigned a user code and there’s a central voter registry. We were able to go into the central user registry and document what appeared to be unusual irregular activity," he said.

Galvin's office sent letters asking those voters to confirm that they had authorized these party changes. "They responded of course they had not, nor had they requested any absentee ballots. At that point we knew we had a problem."

The case has been referred to the Hampden County district attorney.
http://www.wgbhnews.org/post/galvin-calls-voter-fraud-allegations-pretty-extreme
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#3
Serious question: Wouldn't voter ID laws also solve problems like these? The law should be that you can't do ANYTHING voter related without a photo ID. You want to change affiliation or request an absentee ballot? Fine. But the request has to have a photocopy of the photo ID for verification.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#5
Serious question: Wouldn't voter ID laws also solve problems like these? The law should be that you can't do ANYTHING voter related without a photo ID. You want to change affiliation or request an absentee ballot? Fine. But the request has to have a photocopy of the photo ID for verification.
So you have no problem sending your license through the mail like that? Some states have the Social Security number on the license too. And like it's not hard to fake a scanned copy of it in MS Paint anyway. And most people that do the absentee ballot thing do it because it saves time, now you've just added another layer of bureaucracy to something that already has fraud checks in place (as is evidenced here). What do you think the voter turnout would be for absentee ballots under NeonTaster's plan?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#6
Serious question: Wouldn't voter ID laws also solve problems like these? The law should be that you can't do ANYTHING voter related without a photo ID. You want to change affiliation or request an absentee ballot? Fine. But the request has to have a photocopy of the photo ID for verification.
When the guy perpretrating the fraud is the one behind the desk collecting these applications and photocopies, my guess would be no, those laws would do nothing to solve this problem.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#7
So you have no problem sending your license through the mail like that? Some states have the Social Security number on the license too. And like it's not hard to fake a scanned copy of it in MS Paint anyway. And most people that do the absentee ballot thing do it because it saves time, now you've just added another layer of bureaucracy to something that already has fraud checks in place (as is evidenced here). What do you think the voter turnout would be for absentee ballots under NeonTaster's plan?
When the guy perpretrating the fraud is the one behind the desk collecting these applications and photocopies, my guess would be no, those laws would do nothing to solve this problem.
It really was a serious question since I don't know how absentee ballots even work. So I guess the answer would be no. I still don't understand how this translates into an opposition to voted ID laws. Why not combat all forms of possible voter fraud? You think I'm ok with the above because it was a republican? Winning an election isn't worth it if you had to commit fraud to do it.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,569
22,225
398
Northern California
#8
It really was a serious question since I don't know how absentee ballots even work. So I guess the answer would be no. I still don't understand how this translates into an opposition to voted ID laws. Why not combat all forms of possible voter fraud? You think I'm ok with the above because it was a republican? Winning an election isn't worth it if you had to commit fraud to do it.
This. Voter ID laws help prevent some, not all, forms of fraud. Obviously fraud within vote processing operations is a completely different issue. Sending confirmation notices of changed political parties seems like a good method to help catch this type of stuff.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#9
I still don't understand how this translates into an opposition to voted ID laws. Why not combat all forms of possible voter fraud?
Because as was pointed out, any voter ID laws wouldn't have done anything to stop it when it's an inside job. You don't think there'd be plenty of opposition on both sides from people objecting to sending a copy of their driver's licenses through the mail like that? For something that's incredibly rare in the first place?

Think of it this way: Even if you're in favor of the death penalty, you probably also concede the point that you need to make sure that there's a preponderance of evidence against a guy you send to the gallows. "Better to let 100 men walk than to execute one innocent man..." Same thing with the voter ID stuff. Sure, you MAY catch a couple of people trying to game the system, but how many thousands of people will be kicked out of the voting process?

Sending confirmation notices of changed political parties seems like a good method to help catch this type of stuff.
That's a good system, but now consider the costs associated with having to do that. Mailing costs, paper costs, probably have to hire a couple more government employees now too. Sorry to go all fiscally conservatish on your ass. :action-sm
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,569
22,225
398
Northern California
#10
That's a good system, but now consider the costs associated with having to do that. Mailing costs, paper costs, probably have to hire a couple more government employees now too. Sorry to go all fiscally conservatish on your ass. :action-sm
As far as government spending goes, I don't think protecting election integrity is a wasteful use of resources.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#11
It really was a serious question since I don't know how absentee ballots even work. So I guess the answer would be no. I still don't understand how this translates into an opposition to voted ID laws. Why not combat all forms of possible voter fraud? You think I'm ok with the above because it was a republican? Winning an election isn't worth it if you had to commit fraud to do it.
An absentee ballot is a way for a voter to cast a ballot who cannot make it to the polls on Election Day. Basically if you know you won't be able to, you need to request a ballot in advance, fill it out (just like you would if you were at the polling station) and send it back in. The ballots are collected and are counted post-election, and totals added to the "in-person" totals. A problem could occur if you request an absentee ballot and then visit the polling station on Election Day. Most places will not allow you to vote, except by a "provisional ballot" which means we will audit the absentee ballots and if there is none submitted for you, we will count your provisional ballot as your official vote. Of course you can see how all of this is ripe for fraud, especially for an inside job.

Requesting an absentee ballot and casting an absentee ballot typically does not require ID. Your absentee ballot will be sent to your official address but other than that, nothing prevents the mailman, nosey neighbor or kid from filling out the ballot and sending it back in as your "official" vote.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,569
22,225
398
Northern California
#13
But aren't you not protecting election integrity by disenfranchising eligible voters?
Not if it's reasonable. You obviously have to find a balance between accommodating voters and stopping fraud... but voting in America is easier than ever before. When our country was founded, people who wanted to vote often had to ride horses/walk a long ways to get to a polling place. Is asking a potential voter to obtain photo identification really that much of an inconvenience?
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#14
Because as was pointed out, any voter ID laws wouldn't have done anything to stop it when it's an inside job. You don't think there'd be plenty of opposition on both sides from people objecting to sending a copy of their driver's licenses through the mail like that? For something that's incredibly rare in the first place?

Think of it this way: Even if you're in favor of the death penalty, you probably also concede the point that you need to make sure that there's a preponderance of evidence against a guy you send to the gallows. "Better to let 100 men walk than to execute one innocent man..." Same thing with the voter ID stuff. Sure, you MAY catch a couple of people trying to game the system, but how many thousands of people will be kicked out of the voting process?
So it is reasonable for the NAACP to require a photo ID for you to be able to watch Eric Holder attack voter ID laws, but it isn't ok for you to prove who you are in order to vote? Come on...
 

Owenay

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed...
May 10, 2007
3,666
248
358
Bizarro World
#15
But aren't you not protecting election integrity by disenfranchising eligible voters?
How is it disenfranchising to require ID to vote? Is it disenfranchising to smokers and drinkers to provide ID at the counter? Is it disenfranchising to provide ID when opening a bank account or a PO Box? Is it disenfranchising for welfare recipients to provide ID to even receive it in the first place? It's ridiculous. The very people you lefties claim will be disenfranchised by Voter ID are the poorest and oldest among us. Yet it is those very same people who receive multiple forms of government assistance that requires ID to get. Wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd have ID's already? Furthermore, it's insulting to the alleged victims of Voter ID laws, the poor and minorities in particular, to suggest that they are just oh so incapable of getting ID. But that's just par for the course for Progressive thought.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
So it is reasonable for the NAACP to require a photo ID for you to be able to watch Eric Holder attack voter ID laws, but it isn't ok for you to prove who you are in order to vote? Come on...
No.

How is it disenfranchising to require ID to vote? Is it disenfranchising to smokers and drinkers to provide ID at the counter? Is it disenfranchising to provide ID when opening a bank account or a PO Box? Is it disenfranchising for welfare recipients to provide ID to even receive it in the first place? It's ridiculous.
That's all well and good, but none of those are guaranteed by the Constitution.

The very people you lefties claim will be disenfranchised by Voter ID are the poorest and oldest among us. Yet it is those very same people who receive multiple forms of government assistance that requires ID to get. Wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd have ID's already?
Not every poor person and minority collects welfare.

Furthermore, it's insulting to the alleged victims of Voter ID laws, the poor and minorities in particular, to suggest that they are just oh so incapable of getting ID. But that's just par for the course for Progressive thought.
Not saying they're incapable. Just that it would have an impact on some of them.

Why don't you just be honest and say you support it because it'll keep fewer Democrats from voting? If Republicans were that concerned about voter fraud, they'd concentrate on areas where it's a lot more prevalent, like absentee fraud. Not the .0001% of the times when it's done in person without an ID.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#18
How is it disenfranchising to require ID to vote?
It's one of our inalienable rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Is it disenfranchising to smokers and drinkers to provide ID at the counter?
Nope, not Constitutionally protected to smoke and drink, and private shop owners are welcome to sell to whomever they wish, regardless of ID

Is it disenfranchising to provide ID when opening a bank account or a PO Box?
Nope not Constitutionally protected to save money or receive mail.

Is it disenfranchising for welfare recipients to provide ID to even receive it in the first place?
Most welfare agencies provide their own ID to welfare recipients. Typically if they don't present those ID they cannot use their benefits. Nothing disenfranchising about that

Sounds like the solution is for governments to send out ID's with voter registration cards and make sure that the same person who registered is the one who is voting. That eliminates the need to get an onerous State ID that nowadays requires 10 alternate forms of ID to prove your identity.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#20
Voter ID laws keep people that shouldn't be voting from voting. It's not our fault the vast majority of those people are democrats.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#22
Regarding the constitutionality - just because voting is a constitutional right doesn't mean you shouldn't have to meet the minimum criteria of proving who you are. I also have a constitutional right to walk through Times Square in the middle of the day, but I can't do it without any pants on, EVEN if I can't afford to buy any pants.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,569
22,225
398
Northern California
#23
So is it unconstitutional to require photo ID to buy a firearm? That is a right afforded us under our Constitution, yet the last time I purchased a firearm I had to provide photo ID, take a written test, provide proof of residence in the form of a utility bill, and pass a background check.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,661
8,837
693
Loveland, CO
#24
So is it unconstitutional to require photo ID to buy a firearm? That is a right afforded us under our Constitution, yet the last time I purchased a firearm I had to provide photo ID, take a written test, provide proof of residence in the form of a utility bill, and pass a background check.
I think all those things might be unconstitutional, but our current SCOTUS justices are content with imposing certain limitations on our inalienable right. But just because we have accepted limitations on one right, should we automatically allow limitations be imposed on another?
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,546
513
Kingdom of Charis
#25
I think all those things might be unconstitutional, but our current SCOTUS justices are content with imposing certain limitations on our inalienable right. But just because we have accepted limitations on one right, should we automatically allow limitations be imposed on another?
Proving you are you is not a limitation. It is a verification.